• 
• 

Published on August 13, 2007

The game goes like this: find an obscure law on the shelf that is hardly used or enforced, dust it off, and then reinterpret it to support whatever outlandish action one wishes to implement.

Now that the so called "grave threat" of political bumper stickers on taxis has been identified, Minister Thirapat is claiming the Motor Vehicle Act bars advertising on taxis! The stretch he makes to apply this law to "vote no" stickers about the constitutional referendum is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic.

Has this law ever been enforced previously? A quick look at Bangkok's taxis, littered with "we love farang" advertisements from a local mobile phone service, shows the answer is clearly no. Does a political bumper constitute a commercial appeal? This is far-fetched. More than anything, Minister Thirapat's action simply serves to show the desperation of the government to mould public opinion in any way possible for the constitutional referendum vote on August 19.

Philip S Robertson Jr

Bangkok

 

Foreign investment has obvious benefits

Re: "Thais happier without huge foreign investment", Letters, August 12.

Elizabeth Hardcastle's letter is no doubt well meaning but is typical of the perspective of many foreign tourists and retirees who have never worked here and imagine Thailand as a country full of smiling peasants contented with simple bucolic lives in the warm, balmy climate.

Hardcastle states that she was a teacher in England who retired early due to ill health and came to live in Thailand. I wonder if she has paused to think how many teachers in Thai public schools have the financial ability to retire abroad or have access to adequate health care when they get sick.

Hardcastle comes from a country where the per capita government expenditure on education at US$2.6 billion is more than 15 times Thailand's paltry US$165 million. The differential in terms of public health care is even more alarming: the UK spends US$3.5 billion for its citizens which is 50 times greater than Thailand's expenditure of US$70 million.

The truth is that, while they can still manage a dutiful smile for Hardcastle and other foreigners who know nothing of their lives, ordinary Thai people are not satisfied with inadequate education, health care, pensions and other public services that she has been able to take for granted in the UK. These services account for 33 per cent of the UK's national budget but only 11 per cent of Thailand's.

It is a fact that the Thai economy will have to get back to a faster long-run rate of growth than the snail's pace it has lapsed into in recent years in order to satisfy these legitimate aspirations for a better quality of life. Freely allowing in the foreign capital that Hardcastle so despises is in fact a very efficient means of improving growth rates in developing countries, facilitating productivity gains through technological innovation and training of human resources without putting inflationary strains on the host countries' domestic money supplies.

Generally speaking, foreign investors in consumer sectors such as retail and banking provide people with better-quality goods and services and locals are quick to see this and vote with their feet. The host countries need legislation to protect their environments but this is also true with local investment.

While Hardcastle was sad to see her former pupils in the UK struggling to pay bills and buy unnecessary consumer items, I feel sad to see ordinary Thais struggling to feed their families and pay for health care, knowing that their children will receive the same poor-quality education that they did. They deserve something better than selfish elites trying to protect their inefficient businesses from foreign competition to the detriment of the Thai public.

George Morgan

Bangkok

Keep on consuming what you don't need

Maybe I am not scanning the newspaper closely enough but it seems strange that the last word I heard was that Thailand would not allow the large foreign retail chains to expand any further in Thailand. Now, while I was away, my wife called me and said that there were protests taking place in Yasothon by retailers opposing the building of new Big C and Lotus stores in the town.

I'm getting a little confused. Thailand is restricting foreign business further with its new FBA bill while simultaneously allowing foreign superstores to continue to expand in Thailand.

I think I hit the nail on the head some time ago when I suggested that it could be that the present Thai government is just trying to remind foreign business that there is a new sheriff in town and it will be necessary to re-grease the wheels of progress if they want to continue to gobble Thailand up. Obviously the previous effort to restrict chain retail expansion was just such an operation and even more obviously the big chains took the bait and reopened their purse strings.

I have mixed emotions about these superstores because living in Isaan it is nice to have access in the stores in Roi Et or Ubon to a few items that I can't get up here. However, on the other hand, I know that what they are doing is not good for Thailand. Why? I could go into a dissertation about why, but it is easier to just relate a story to you. Some months ago, while shopping at the big store in Ubon, I saw a Thai lady pull out a credit card to pay for a purchase of less than Bt300. Foreign business encourages that because that is what their economies are based on: buying what you can't afford. The various social maladies that follow such practices are well-known to all.

It is a sad state of affairs that this country cannot produce a government that knows how to exploit to the fullest Thailand's natural resources and attributes, but rather continues to produce politicians who prefer to sell the country off piece by piece to foreigners who only wish to inflict their way of life on Thailand to keep the entire manufactured process in motion.

Foreign economics has little substance to most of it. It is based on consumption. Buying what you really can't afford in order to continue to keep the wheels turning. Everyone gets more sooner but sacrifices their peace of mind to do so. Either Thai politicians have not figured this out yet, or they just really don't care and prefer to grab theirs now and for as long as the golden goose stays alive. Either way, all of it is saddening.

John Arnone

Yasothon

Past morality was even more shocking

Re: " 'Shocking' display by Swiss women", News, August 11.

I should like to explore the suggestion of the University Games' liaison officers that foreign competitors "need to also learn the Thai culture", voiced following the incident of Swiss sportswomen changing their shirts on the pitch

In traditional Thai culture women, until the 19th century, generally went bare-chested. It was only during the 4th and 5th reigns that Victorian morality and social ethics were adapted and ladies urged to cover their chests to support the impression that the Thai kingdom was "civilised".

It is true that some current Thai social norms are pretty strait-laced, but their origin is more Victorian than Thai. Indeed, sportswomen from one of the world's most liberal nations can be excused for stumbling into such a culture trap. May they also take comfort in knowing that the offence and shock they apparently caused relate to a social taboo that has its roots in a repressive and authoritarian era - and I am talking about Britain in the 19th century - which while being highly moralistic was also marked by a majority of people suffering under harsh living and working conditions.

Philip Baechtold

Bangkok

Wild animals are not an economic commodity

Thailand's wild tigers are on the verge of extinction, numbering probably fewer than 150. It is disturbing to read that a senior government officer who was responsible for protecting this country's wildlife regards tigers as a resource to be "given to anyone" because they were captive-bred.

Tigers, whether captive-bred or wild, are part of nature and are entitled under both Thai and United Nations legislation to protection from exploitation. This country was disgraced by the export of such a seriously endangered species to China, where tigers are farmed for meat using cruel, intensive breeding methods.

 The only so-called research programme was of a financial nature and none of the exported 100 tigers or their offspring has been returned to the wild.

I congratulate the NCCC on their findings in this appalling case.

Norman Ball

Bangkok